China Law Insight : China Law Insight: China Commercial and Intellectual Property Lawyers and Attorneys, Full Service Law Firm: King & Wood

1. Wang Haiyang case;
 
In Wang Haiyang vs. Hainan Kaidi Network Information Co., Ltd. [(2011) guminchuzi. No.399], the first instance court found that the defendant online BBS owner was subjectively at fault in refusing to delete online posts of an offensive and libellous nature regarding the plaintiff despite the plaintiff's various oral pleas and rendered a decision favorable to the plaintiff by citing Article 101 of the General Principles of the Civil Law of the PRC and Sub 2, Article 36 of the Tort Law of the PRC. However, the court did not address the issue of whether the defendant was a tortfeasor. It also denied the plaintiff's compensation claim.
 
Both the plaintiff and the defendant appealed to the Henan Kaifeng Intermediate People's Court. The appellate court held that the defendant's refusal to delete the posts in question without reasonable grounds constituted tortious conduct as against the plaintiff by infringing the plaintiff's and plaintiff family's rights of reputation under Article 101 of the General Principles of the Civil Law of the PRC and Sub 2, Article 36 of the Tort Law of the PRC. The court ordered in its decision dated Dec. 19, 2011 that the defendant should make a formal apology on its website to the plaintiff according to Sub 1, Article 120 of the General Principles of the Civil Law of the PRC and pay compensatory damages of RMB5,000 to the plaintiff for emotional distress that he and his family suffered from the tort, which is calculated based on the standard set by Article 10 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues about the Trial of Cases Concerning the Right of Reputation (1998).
 
For your reference, the English versions respectively of the General Principles of the Civil Law of the PRC and the Tort Law of the PRC can be found at below links:
 
http://english.mofcom.gov.cn/aarticle/lawsdata/chineselaw/200211/20021100050859.html
 
http://www.procedurallaw.cn/english/law/201001/t20100110_300173.html
 
The English version of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues about the Trial of Cases Concerning the Right of Reputation can be found at http://eng.chinalaw.com.tw/law/display.asp?id=6673&keyword=. However, the full text is only available to existing users.
 
2. We have not noticed any significant changes to the court's interpretations of the right to privacy and right of reputation since the Wang Fei case that was decided in late 2008.

Hope the above helps. Thank you for your inquiry.

The principal remedies that a plaintiff can seek against a tortfeasor are clearly prescribed in the Tort Law, namely: cessation of infringement, removal of obstacles, elimination of danger, returning property, restoration to the original state, compensation for losses, making an apology, elimination of adverse impacts and restoration of injured party's reputation.

Article 36 of the Tort Law deserves special attention because of the rapidly increasing IPR infringement cases related to the internet. According to article 36, internet users and internet service providers bear tortious liability if they conduct infringement through the internet. Where an internet user engages in tortious conduct through internet services, the injured party has the right to inform the internet service provider and the latter must take necessary action against such tortious conduct. The internet service provider failing to do so shall be jointly and severally liable with the internet user with regard to the additional injury or damage suffered. Where an internet service provider knows an internet user is infringing other people's individual rights and interests through its internet service but fails to take necessary action, it shall be jointly and severally liable with the internet user.

Source: http://www.saic.gov.cn/gzfw/gszs/201001/t20100106_79168.html